Friday, April 12, 2019

Jim Rickards: Prepare Now for the Aftermath



Jim Rickards and Albert Lu, the President & CEO of Sprott Money sit down to discuss the coming disaster on the horizon and how best to prepare for it? 

This is laid out clearly in Jim Rickards soon to be released book, Aftermath.

In his most prescriptive book to date, financial expert and investment advisor James Rickards shows how and why our financial markets are being artificially inflated and what smart investors can do to protect their assets.



What goes up, must come down. As any student of financial history knows, the dizzying heights of the stock market can't continue indefinitely, especially since asset prices have been artificially inflated by investor optimism around the Trump administration, ruinously low interest rates, and the infiltration of behavioral economics into our financial lives. 

The elites are prepared, but what's the average investor to do?

Sunday, April 7, 2019

James Rickards: A Recipe for Massive Government Spending

I try to avoid partisan politics in my analysis. And I never try to tell people how to vote or what they should think. I trust my readers to make their own judgments. But sometimes I can’t avoid partisan politics because they can have a major impact on markets and the economy.

Leading Democratic presidential hopefuls Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders have expressed desires to increase income taxes to 70% or even 90% on the rich, impose “wealth taxes” on their net worth and impose estate taxes that are equally onerous when they die.

The result would be that working people would pay state and local income tax on their wages, super-high income taxes on interest and dividends and annual wealth taxes and whatever was left over would be confiscated when they die.

In case you think these proposals are too extreme to become law, you might want to check out the polls. Recent polls show 74% of registered voters support a 2% annual wealth tax on those with $50 million of assets and 3% on those with $1 billion of assets.

Don’t assume you’re exempt just because your annual income is lower. Those tax thresholds are on wealth, not income, and could include stocks, bonds, business equity and intangible business equity for doctors, dentists and lawyers.

Another poll shows 59% of voters support the 70% income tax rate proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York). Politicians go where the votes are. Right now, the votes are in favor of much higher taxes on you.

The history of these taxes is that the rates start low and the thresholds start high, but it’s just a matter of time before rates rise, thresholds drop and everyone is handing over their wealth.

But taxes become very unpopular when too many people get clipped. And politicians are very sensitive to that. Now some Democrats are calling for a system that would allow them to spend much, much more money on social programs without appreciably raising taxes. For politicians, it’s a dream come true — if it could work.

The leading Democratic candidates for president and numerous members of Congress have come out in favor of Medicare for All, free child care, fee tuition, a guaranteed basic income even for those unwilling to work and a Green New Deal that will require all Americans to give up their cars, stop flying in planes and rebuild most commercial buildings and residences from the ground up to use renewable energy sources only.

The costs of these programs are estimated at $75–95 trillion over the next 10 years. To put those costs in perspective, $20 trillion represents the entire U.S. GDP and $22 trillion is the national debt.

It used to be easy to knock these ideas down with a simple rebuttal that the U.S. couldn’t afford it. If we raised taxes, it would kill the economy. If we printed the money, it would cause inflation. Those types of objections are still heard from mainstream economists and policymakers, including Fed Chair Jay Powell.

But now the big spenders have a simple answer to the complaint that we can’t afford it. Their answer is, “Yes, we can!” That’s because of a new school of thought called Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT.

Daily Reckoning managing editor Brian Maher previously discussed MMT here and here.

This theory says that the U.S. can spend as much as it wants and run the deficit as high as we want because the Fed can monetize any Treasury debt by printing money and holding the debt on its balance sheet until maturity, at which time it can be rolled over with new debt.

What’s the problem?

Bernanke printed $4 trillion from 2008–2014 to bail out the banks and help Wall Street keep their big bonuses. There was no inflation. So why not print $10 trillion or more to try out these new programs?

There are serious problems with MMT (not the ones Jay Powell and mainstream voices point to). But very few analysts can really see the flaws. I’ll be in an MMT debate with a leading proponent in a few weeks, where I will point out what I believe to be the biggest flaws with MMT. To my knowledge, no one else has raised them.

For now, get used to the rise of MMT. It will be a central feature of the 2020 election campaign. The disastrous consequences are a little further down the road.


- Source, Jim Rickards via the Daily Reckoning

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

The Real Problem With Modern Monetary Theory

MMT supporters will point to 2008 and say, “Just look at QE. In 2008, the Federal Reserve Balance sheet was $800 billion. But as a result of QE1, QE2, and QE3, that number went to $4.5 trillion. And the world didn’t end. To the contrary, the stock market went on a huge bull run.We did not have an economic crash. And again, inflation was muted.”

Fed chairman Jay Powell has criticized MMT, for example. But its advocates say Powell and other Fed officials hoist themselves on their own petard. That’s because they are the ones who actually proved that MMT works. They point to the fact that the Fed printed close to $4 trillion and nothing bad happened. So it should go ahead and print another $4 trillion.

This is one of the great ironies of the debate. The Fed criticizes MMT, but it was its very own money creation after 2008 that MMT advocates point to as proof that it works.

Their only quibble is that the benefit of all that money creation went to rich investors, the major banks and corporations. The rich simply got richer. MMT advocates say it will simply redirect the money towards the poor, students, everyday Americans, people who need healthcare and childcare. It would basically be QE for the people, instead of the rich.

And it will go into the real economy, where it will boost productivity and finally give us significant growth.

When I first encountered these arguments, I knew they weren’t right. Both my gut feeling and my more rigorous approach to my own theory of money told me MMT was wrong. But I must admit, their arguments were more difficult to answer than I expected. I had a tough time uncovering the logical flaws.

Their points are internally consistent, and they did have a point. After all, the Fed did create all that money and it didn’t produce a calamity. Who’s to say they couldn’t do a lot more of it?

In other words, the Keynesian argument does not hold water when you look at the facts or certainly recent economic history.

Without doing any more serious thinking about it, I probably would have lost a debate with any leading MMT proponent who’s done a lot of work on it, despite “knowing” they were wrong. I couldn’t easily refute their basic arguments.

You can never win a debate if you don’t understand your opponent’s position. Over the past several years I got dragged into endless gold versus bitcoin debates, and I always thought they were silly because gold is gold, and bitcoin is bitcoin. Contrasting them never made sense to me, but that’s what everybody wanted to hear, so I participated in a lot of gold versus bitcoin debates.

I won every debate according to the judges or the audience, but the point being I had to understand bitcoin in order to see its shortcomings. I wasn’t about to debate somebody about bitcoin and get blindsided or embarrassed because I didn’t understand their arguments. I had to become a complete expert on bitcoin to win these debates.

The same applies to MMT. If you’re going to debate somebody on MMT, you’d better know it better than they do or you’re going to lose that debate. It just so happens that I’ll be debating a leading MMT proponent on April 3, in just a few weeks. So I had to immerse myself in it to learn it inside and out.

I knew I had to go beyond the standard arguments that we can’t afford it, that it would explode the deficit, etc. I’m happy to say that I worked out an answer refuting MMT, but it wasn’t easy. It took a lot of hard thinking. Today I’m giving you a preview of what I’ll argue at the upcoming debate.

Here’s what it comes down to…

The real problem with MMT can be traced to its very definition of money. The MMT advocates say they know what money is. Money derives its value from the fact that you need it to pay your taxes. In the U.S. case, money is dollars.

But their definition of money is flawed. In other words, the whole theory is built on quicksand. And this is the point that everyone is missing, including the usual critics. No one else has raised it.

The basis of money, the definition of money, has nothing to do with paying taxes. I can think of a hundred ways to hold money and store wealth where you don’t owe any taxes. Here’s one example…

If you buy a share of stock and stick it in your portfolio for 10 years without selling it, how much do you owe in taxes? Zero. You don’t owe any taxes until you sell it. This is one of the reasons why Warren Buffet is so rich, by the way. He pays very little taxes...


- Source, Jim Rickards via the Daily Reckoning, read more here

Friday, March 29, 2019

Jim Rickards: Exposing the Myth of MMT

Yesterday I discussed modern monetary theory (MMT) and how it’s become very popular in Democratic circles.

That’s because it allows for much greater government spending without having to raise everyone’s taxes. And everyday citizens could get behind it because it promises to fund lots of programs without seeing their taxes raised.

What’s not to like?

If MMT were just a fringe idea with a few fringe followers, I wouldn’t waste my time or your time on it. But it’s coming your way, so it is important to understand it.

If you missed yesterday’s reckoning, go here for a refresher.

The people who are thinking about MMT, who understand it at least in some superficial way, are the people who are driving the policy debate or running for president.

Many mainstream economists and money managers have attacked MMT, including Fed Chairman Jay Powell, Larry Summers, Paul Krugman, Kenneth Rogoff, Larry Fink, Jeff Gundlach, Jamie Dimon and Ray Dalio.

But much of their criticism is unjustified (see below for more). I’m an opponent of MMT — but for different reasons. As far as I know, I’m the only analyst who’s raised the objections I list below.

Today, I’m going to show you what I believe to be the real problem with MMT.

Again, it’s easy to see why so many politicians on the Democratic side would be such big supporters of MMT.

Some or all of them have come out in support of the following programs:

Free college tuition, student loan forgiveness, Medicare for all, free child care, universal basic income (UBI) and a Green New Deal. Some support them all.

Needless to say, that’s going to cost a lot of money. Just consider the Green New Deal alone.

I’m not going to go through every detail of it. But in essence it would spend trillions of dollars, for example, building high-speed rail. The idea is to cut down dramatically on air travel. It would also convert nearly every single structure in the country to solar power.

I wrote this article from a house that’s running on solar power. But it’s very expensive to put the system in. I have a big system, but it barely covers my house. And every time I look at it, I say, “Oh, we’re going to do this for every house in the country? Good luck with that.”

Some analysts have estimated that the Green New Deal would cost around $97 trillion. That’s trillion, not billion — or nearly five times annual U.S. GDP.

When critics hear that a Green New Deal could potentially cost something like $97 trillion, or proposals for Medicare for all, free tuition, free child care or guaranteed basic income, they say, “That all sounds nice, but we just can’t afford it.”

That’s their main argument — that no matter how desirable these programs might be in theory, we just can’t afford them. Most criticism of MMT falls along those lines.

Even the Keynesians like those I mentioned earlier, who generally favor large amounts of government spending to stimulate the economy, have come out against MMT.

Besides that claim that we can’t afford it, even the Keynesians say MMT would be highly inflationary. If you printed that much money and start handing it out to people, demand would outstrip the output capacity of the economy and you’d get high inflation.

But the MMT advocates have an answer to these objections. They’re not the least bit intimidated by critics who say we can’t afford it.

They say, “Yes, we can, and Modern Monetary Theory proves it. Just print the money and monetize the debt. Japanese debt is 2.5 times the United States’ debt, and China’s is higher than ours.”

They haven’t collapsed, so we can take on far more debt than we have today. Furthermore, QE did not create much inflation. In fact, the Fed would like to see more inflation than it has. It still can’t produce a sustained 2% inflation rate after all these years.

You might think the argument is ridiculous. After all, do we really want to become Japan?

But in important ways, the MMT crowd has the upper hand in the debate.


- Source, Jim Rickards via the Daily Reckoning

Monday, March 25, 2019

Jim Rickards: Fed Desperate for Inflation, Bullish for Gold


Four time best-selling author Jim Rickards says “The time to buy gold is when sentiment is low and people hate it. So, the bull market is intact.” 

We are in the fourth year. Bull markets start off slow because of all the bad sentiment, but then they gather momentum. 

So, it’s still not too late to jump on this train, and my expectation is this will pick up. The signal the gold market is getting right now is the Fed is throwing in the towel.

They made some headway, but it came at a high cost because they slowed the economy and they can’t continue.

Now, they are going to be desperate for inflation, and that is very bullish for gold.”

- Source, USA Watchdog

Saturday, March 9, 2019

The Future of International Monetary System


James Rickards is the editor of Strategic Intelligence, a financial newsletter, and director of the James Rickards Project, an inquiry into the complex dynamics of geopolitics and global capital. 

He is a portfolio manager, lawyer, and economist, and has held senior positions at Citibank, Long-Term Capital Management, and Caxton Associates. 

In 1998, he was the principal negotiator of the rescue of LTCM, sponsored by the Federal Reserve. His clients include institutional investors and government directorates.

Saturday, February 23, 2019

James Rickards: Multiple Risks Are Converging at Once


Since the end of QE and the “taper” in October 2014, the Fed has been trying to “normalize” their balance sheet and interest rates. The balance sheet needed to be reduced from $4.5 trillion to about $2.5 trillion through “quantitative tightening” or QT, which is tantamount to burning money.

Interest rates needed to be raised to around 4% in stages of 0.25%. The purpose of QT and rate hikes was so that the Fed would have the capacity to lower rates and increase the balance sheet (“QE4”) again to fight a new recession.

The rate hikes started in December 2015 (the “liftoff”) and the balance sheet reductions started in October 2017. Both started slowly but have gained momentum. Rates are now up to 2.5% and the balance sheet is just below $4 trillion.

The Fed’s problem was that actual rate hikes were about 1% per year and the balance sheet reduction at $600 billion per year had the effect of another 1% of rate hikes. Would the Fed be able to achieve its goals of 4% rates and a $2.5 trillion balance sheet without causing the recession they were preparing to fight?

It turns out the answer is no. In late December, Fed chair Powell announced the Fed would be “patient” on rate hikes. That means no more rate hikes until further notice. Now, the Fed has also apparently thrown in the towel on balance sheet normalization.

When QT began, Janet Yellen said it would “run on background” and would not be an instrument of policy. Ooops. Now the Fed is ending it so it clearly is an instrument of policy.

Right now, my models are saying that Powell’s verbal ease is too little too late. Damage to U.S. growth prospects has already been done by the Fed’s tightening since December 2015 and the Fed’s QT policy that started in October 2017.

The 2009–2018 recovery has already been the weakest recovery in U.S. history despite a few good quarters here and there. And there’s little reason to expect it to pick up from here. In fact, growth is slowing.

GDP expanded 3.4% in the third quarter of 2018, which looks good on paper. But the trend is pointing down. Q2 growth was 4.2%. This trend tends to confirm the view that 2018 growth was a “Trump bump” from the tax cuts that will not be repeated. And Q4 GDP, which has been delayed due to the government shutdown, will probably be lower than Q3.

Some of the major banks have downgraded their Q4 GDP forecasts after yesterday’s poor retail sales report.

Goldman Sachs, for example, previously projected fourth-quarter GDP to expand at 2.5%. Now it’s down to 2.0%. Its projections for the rest of the year are no better. JPMorgan also revised down its previous Q4 forecast from a previous 2.6% to 2.0%. And Barclays lowered its Q4 forecast from 2.8% to 2.1%.

Even the Atlanta branch of the Federal Reserve, which is known for perpetually overestimating GDP, has cut its Q4 forecast by almost half. A little over a week ago its reading was 2.7%. But after yesterday’s retail sales report, its latest forecast comes it at just 1.5%.

We also have other signs the economy is slowing down. A report this week revealed a record seven million Americans are now at least 90 days behind in their car loan payments. There is also a student loan crisis unfolding.

Total student loans today at $1.6 trillion are larger than the amount of junk mortgages in late 2007 of about $1.0 trillion. Default rates on student loans are already higher than mortgage default rates in 2007. This time the loan losses are falling not on the banks and hedge funds but on the Treasury itself because of government guarantees.

Not only are student loan defaults soaring, but household debt has hit another all-time high. Student loans and household debt are just the tip of the debt iceberg that also includes junk bonds corporate debt and even sovereign debt, all at or near record highs around the world.

But it’s not just the U.S.

China and Europe are both slowing at the same time. China’s problems are well-known. And while the causes may vary, growth in all of the major economies in the EU and the U.K. is either slowing or has already turned negative. Markets see the global slowdown (despite Fed ease) and are preparing for a recession at best and a possible market crash at worst.

Still, why has growth slowed down at all?

The answer has to do with debt, Fed policy, political developments, as well as currency wars and trade wars. Specifically, the U.S. and China, the world’s two largest economies, are discovering the limits of debt-fueled growth.

According to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), it required a record $8 trillion of freshly created debt to create just $1.3 trillion of global GDP. The trend is clear. The massive debts intended to achieve growth are piling on every day. Meanwhile, many of the debts taken on since 2009 are still on the books.

The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is now 106%, the highest since the end of the Second World War. The Chinese debt-to-GDP ratio is a more reasonable 48%, but that figure is misleading because it does not include the debts and guarantees of provinces, state-owned enterprises, banks, wealth management products and numerous other entities that the government in Beijing is directly or indirectly obligated to support.

When that additional debt is taken into account, the real debt-to-GDP ratio is over 250%, about the same as Japan’s.

Debt-to-GDP ratios below 60% are considered sustainable; ratios between 60% and 90% are considered unsustainable and need to be reversed; and ratios in excess of 90% are in the red zone and will produce negative growth along with default through nonpayment, inflation or other forms of debt repudiation.

The world’s three largest economies — the U.S., China and Japan — are all now deep in the red zone.

What is striking is the speed with which synchronized global growth has turned to synchronized slowing. Indications are that this slowing is far from over. While growth can create a positive feedback loop, slowing can do the same.

Warnings of economic collapse are no longer confined to the fringes of economic analysis but are now coming from major financial institutions and prominent economists, academics and wealth managers. Leading financial elites have been warning of coming collapses and dangers.

These warnings range from the IMF’s Christine Lagarde, Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio, the Bank for International Settlements (known as the “central banker’s central bank”), Paul Tudor Jones and many other highly regarded sources.

Coming back to the U.S., the Fed may have avoided a recession for now, but they have left themselves far short of what they’ll need to fight the next recession when it comes. That could lead to another lost decade. The U.S. looks more like Japan with each passing day.

Investors can profit from this with a combination of long-volatility strategies, safe-haven assets, gold and cash.

- Source, James Rickards via the Daily Reckoning

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Jim Rickards: The Crumbling Chinese Market

A Chinese financial and economic crisis has been in the forecasts of many analysts for years, including my own. So far, it has not happened. Does this mean China has solved the problem of how to avoid a crisis? Or is the crisis just a matter of time, set to happen sooner than later?

My view is that a crisis in China is inevitable based on China’s growth model, the international financial climate and excessive debt. Some of the world’s most prominent economists agree. A countdown to crisis has begun.


As I explained above, China has hit a wall that development economists refer to as the “middle income trap.” Again, this happens to developing economies when they have exhausted the easy growth potential moving from low income to middle income and then face the far more difficult task of moving from middle income to high income.

The move to high-income status requires far more than simple assembly-style jobs staffed by rural dwellers moving to the cities. It requires the creation and adoption of high-value-added products enabled by high technology.

China has not shown much capacity for developing high technology on its own, but it has been quite effective at stealing such technology from trading partners and applying it through its own system of state-owned enterprises and “national champions” such as Huawei in the telecommunications sector.

Unfortunately for China, this growth by theft has run its course. The U.S. and its allies, such as Canada and the EU, are taking strict steps to limit further theft and are holding China to account for its theft so far by imposing punitive tariffs and banning Chinese companies from participation in critical technology rollouts such as 5G mobile phones.

At the same time, China is facing the consequences of excessive debt. Economies can grow through consumption, investment, government spending and net exports. The “Chinese miracle” has been mostly a matter of investment and net exports, with minimal spending by consumers.

The investment component was thinly disguised government spending — many of the companies conducting investment in large infrastructure projects were backed directly or indirectly by the government through the banks.

This investment was debt-financed. China is so heavily indebted that it is now at the point where more debt does not produce growth. Adding additional debt today slows the economy and calls into question China’s ability to service its existing debt.

China’s other lifelines were net exports and large current account surpluses. These were driven by cheap labor, government subsidies and a manipulated currency. These drivers of growth are also disappearing due to demographics that reduce China’s labor force.

China is facing competition by even cheaper labor from Vietnam and Indonesia. Trade surpluses are also being hurt by the trade wars and tariffs imposed by the U.S.

Meanwhile, the debt overhang is growing worse. China’s creditworthiness is now being called into question by international banks and direct foreign investors.

The single most important factor right now is the continuation and expansion of the U.S.-China trade war. When the trade war began in January 2018, the market expectation was that both sides were posturing and that a resolution would be reached quickly.

I took the opposite view. Trump waited a full year from his inauguration before starting the trade war. Trump has given China every opportunity to come to the table and work out a deal acceptable to both sides.

China assumed it was “business as usual” as it had been during the Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama administrations. China assumed it could pay lip service to trading relations and continue down its path of unfair trade practices and theft of intellectual property.

By January 2018, Trump decided he had been patient enough and it was time to show China we were serious about the trade deficit and China’s digital piracy. Since the trade war began, the U.S. has suffered only minor impacts, while the impact on China has been overwhelming.

The deteriorating situation in China is summarized nicely in this excerpt from an article dated Feb. 5, 2019, and titled “The Coming China Shock,” by economists Arvind Subramanian and Josh Felman:

"Back in September, we saw some discontinuity in China’s economic performance as inevitable. Even if the country was not heading for a full-blown crisis, we believed it would almost certainly experience some combination of rapidly decelerating growth and a sharply depreciating exchange rate. That prognosis has since become even more likely. With global economic growth and exports declining, China’s economy is on track to slow further relative to the 6.4% growth recorded in the fourth quarter of 2018. The double-digit average achieved from the 1980s until recently has never seemed more distant."

The impact described by Subramanian and Felman is illustrated in the chart below. This chart shows the price and volume of trading in the iShares China Large-Cap ETF (NYSE:FXI).

FXI peaked at $54.00 per share on Jan. 26, 2018, almost exactly on the day the trade wars began. The index has trended steadily downward from there to the current level of about $42.50 per share, a 21% decline with volatility along the way.


This decline is only a partial reflection of the trade war impact. Wall Street has consistently underestimated the hard economic toll the trade war has taken on China. Wall Street formed the view that the trade war would be short and of minimal impact. Instead it has stretched for 14 months with no end in sight.

The tariffs imposed by the U.S. on China so far have dramatically slowed the Chinese economy. Yet those tariffs are minor compared with what’s in store.

March 1, 2019, is the deadline for the current “truce” in the trade war intended to facilitate negotiations. U.S. demands — especially in the area of verifiable limitations on the theft of U.S. intellectual property — are impossible for China to meet because it depends on such theft to advance its own economic ambitions.

It is highly unlikely that the outstanding issues will be resolved by March 1. Some minor issues may be resolved and some “deal” announced. A deal may include a reduction in the U.S.-China trade deficit through larger purchases of U.S. soybeans by China.

But the big issues including limits on U.S. investment in China, forced technology transfers to China and theft of intellectual property will not be resolved.

The best case is that the deadline will be extended and the trade talks will continue. The worst case is that the truce will fall apart and the U.S. will impose massive tariff increases on Chinese exports to the U.S. as planned. Either way, China’s export-driven economy will continue to suffer.

Given these economic, trade war and political head winds, weakness in China is only getting worse.

And China’s leadership can only hope the damage can be limited before the people begin to question its legitimacy.

- Source, James Rickards via the Daily Reckoning

Friday, February 15, 2019

Markets Hang Between Order and Chaos


Today we bear dramatic news:

Markets have entered a “phase transition zone”… the “magic space between order and chaos.”

This we have on the authority of the brains at Fasanara Capital.

But what will emerge on the other side — order or chaos?

Today our mood is heavy, our brow creased with thought… as we hunt the answer.

We begin with a hypothesis:

Since the financial crisis, central banks have acted as an overprotective parent… or an overzealous referee of a prize fight.

They have kept the bears separated from the bulls, chained in a neutral corner where they could do no harm.

That is, they have throttled off the violent combats, the savage brawls of the market.

“This stock is worth x,” shout the bulls in a normal market. “No — it is only worth y,” roar the protesting bears.

They are soon upon each other’s throats.

Into a cloud of dust they vanish, arms, legs, elbows, flying — and may the better man win.

Ultimately a winner emerges with the proper price.

The professional men call it price discovery.

Price discovery represents, to mix the figure a bit, the democracy of the marketplace.

Each investor has a vote. His vote may contrast bitterly with the other fellow’s.

But the better ideas will generally win the election… and the worse will lose.

The world is left with better mousetraps, superior companies, happier customers.

An Amazon cleans out a Sears. An Apple pummels a Compaq into nonexistence. A Google shows an AOL its dust.

And so on. And so on.

But after the financial crisis, the central banks rolled in with their tanks… and declared martial law.

The democracy of the marketplace went under the treads.

Is this company superior to that one? Does it deserve its stock price?

No one could say.

QE and zero interest rates put blindfolds over everyone’s eyes… and tape over their mouths.

“Passive” investing waged additional war on price discovery.

“Passively” managed funds make no effort to pinpoint winners. They track an overall index or asset category — not the individual components.

Passive investing has rendered actively picking stocks a fool’s errand.

Some 86% of all actively managed stock funds have underperformed their index during the last 10 years.

Explains Larry Swedroe, director of research at Buckingham Strategic Wealth:

“While it is possible to win that game, the odds of doing so are so poor that it’s simply not a prudent choice to play.”

Despite the gaudy averages, only a handful of stocks accounted for most of the market’s gains these past few years.

Through last August, for example, the FAANG stocks — Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Alphabet (Google’s parent company) — accounted for half of the S&P’s gains.

But it was the false stability of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Hang the leader and the place goes to pieces.

In October the FAANGs began going to pieces. A period of vast instability resulted.

And the stock market came within an inch of a bear market by year’s end.

Since investors were all going blind, who could take up the load?

Markets began approaching Fasanara’s “phase transition zone.”

In a word… central banks have destroyed the market’s “resilience.”

Fasanara:

The market has lost its key function of price discovery, its ability to learn and evolve and its inherent buffers and redundancy mechanisms. In a word, the market has lost its “resilience”…

Our inability as market participants to properly frame market fragility and the inherent vulnerability of the financial system makes a market crash more likely, as it helps systemic risk go unattended and build further up.


It is this systemic risk and loss of resilience that heightens the likelihood of a crash:

Conventional market and economic indicators (e.g., breaks of multiyear equity and home price trendlines, freezing credit markets, softening global [manufacturing]) have all but confirmed what nontraditional measures of system-level fragility signaled all along: that a market crash is incubating, and the cliff is near.

But how close is the cliff?

Complex systems like markets, argues Fasanara (and Jim Rickards), are especially vulnerable in this “phase transition zone.”

The butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil and normally that is that.

But in highly unstable conditions, the butterfly flaps its wings and whips up a hurricane off Florida.

Small inputs, that is, have outsized effects under instability… shifting “order” into “chaos.”

What are some of the flapping butterflies that could conjure the hurricane?

Among the eight Fasanara identifies:

Trade war. China. Oil. Trump and the Mueller investigation.

Any one of these — in theory — could tip markets over the chaotic border.

“Given our overall view for market system instability,” warns Fasanara, “it becomes crucial to monitor upcoming catalyst events, as any of them may be able to accelerate the large adjustment we anticipate.”

Meantime, we remain, suspended in the “magic space between order and chaos.”


Monday, February 11, 2019

James Rickards: A Trained Monkey Could Do Better


The first time I appeared on live financial television was August 15, 2007. It was a guest appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box program at the early stages of the 2007-2008 financial crisis.

Of course, none of us knew at that time exactly how and when things would play out, but it was clear to me that a meltdown was coming; the same meltdown I had been warning the government and academics about since 2003.

I’ve done 1,000 live TV interviews since then, but that first one remains memorable. Carl Quintanilla conducted the interview with some participation from Becky Quick, both of whom could not have been more welcoming.

They and the studio crew made me feel right at home even though it was my first time in studio and my first time meeting them. Joe Kernan remained off-camera during my interview with his back turned reading the New York Post sports page, but that’s Joe. We had plenty of interaction in my many interviews over the years that followed.

When I was done, I was curious about how many guests CNBC interviewed over the course of a day. Being on live TV made me feel a bit special, but I wanted to know how special it was to be a guest. The answer was deflating and brought me right down to earth.

CNBC has about 120 guests on in a single day, day after day, year after year. Many of those guests are repeat performers, just as I became a repeat guest on CNBC during the course of the crisis. But, I was just one face in the midst of a thundering herd.

What were all of those guests doing with all of that airtime? Well, for the most part they were forecasting. They predicted stock prices, interest rates, economic growth, unemployment, commodity prices, exchange rates, you name it.

Financial TV is one big prediction engine and the audience seems to have an insatiable appetite for it. That’s natural. Humans and markets dislike uncertainty, and anyone who can shed some light on the future is bound to find an audience.

Which begs a question: How accurate are those predictions?

No one expects perfection or anything close to it. A forecaster who turns out to be accurate 70% of the time is way ahead of the crowd. In fact, if you can be accurate just 55% of the time, you’re in a position to make money since you’ll be right more than you’re wrong. If you size your bets properly and cut losses, a 55% batting average will produce above average returns.

Even monkeys can join in the game. If you’re forecasting random binary outcomes (stocks up or down, rates high or low, etc.), a trained monkey will have a 50% batting average. The reason is that the monkey knows nothing and just points to a random result.

Random pointing with random outcomes over a sustained period will be “right” half the time and “wrong” half the time, for a 50% forecasting record. You won’t make any money with that, but you won’t lose any either. It’s a push.

So, if 70% accuracy is uncanny, 55% accuracy is OK, and 50% accuracy is achieved by trained monkeys, how do actual professional forecasters do? The answer is less than 50%.

In short, professional forecasters are worse than trained monkeys at predicting markets.

Need proof? Every year, the Federal Reserve forecasts economic growth on a one-year forward basis. And it’s been wrong every year for the better part of a decade. When I say “wrong” I mean by orders of magnitude.

If the Fed forecast 3.5% growth and actual growth was 3.3%, I would consider that to be awesome.

But, the Fed would forecast 3.5% growth and it would come in at 2.2%. That’s not even close considering that growth is confined to plus or minus 4% in the vast majority of years.

If you have defective and obsolete models, you will produce incorrect analysis and bad policy every time. There’s no better example of this than the Federal Reserve.

The Fed uses equilibrium models to understand an economy that is not an equilibrium system; it’s a complex dynamic system. The Fed uses the Phillips curve to understand the relationship between unemployment and inflation when 50 years of data say there is no fixed relationship.

The Fed uses what’s called value-at-risk modeling based on normally distributed events when the evidence is clear that the degree distribution of risk events is a power curve, not a normal or bell curve.

As a result of these defective models, the Fed printed $3.5 trillion of new money beginning in 2008 to “stimulate” the economy only to produce the weakest recovery in history. Now, the cycle of monetary tightening has been ongoing in various forms for nearly six years.

Let’s not be too hard on the Fed. The IMF forecasts were just as bad. And the “the wisdom of crowds” can also be dramatically wrong.

It does not have very high predictive value. It’s just as faulty as the professional forecasts from the Fed and IMF.

There are reasons for this. The wisdom of crowds is a highly misunderstood concept. It works well when the problem is simple and the answer is static, but unknown.

The classic case is guessing how many jellybeans are in a large jar. In that situation, the average of 1,000 guesses actually will be better than a single “expert” opinion. That works because the number of jellybeans never changes. There’s nothing dynamic about the problem.

But, when the answer is truly unknown and the problem is complex and dynamic such as capital markets forecasting, then the wisdom of crowds is subject to all of the same biases, herding, risk aversion, and other human quirks known through behavioral psychology.

This is important because when academics say “you can’t beat the market,” my answer is the market indicators are usually wrong. When talking heads say, “you can’t beat the wisdom of crowds,” I just smile and explain what the wisdom of crowds actually does and does not mean.

By the way, this is one reason why markets missed Brexit and Trump. The professional forecasters simply misinterpreted what polls and betting odds were actually saying.

None of this means that polls, betting odds, and futures contracts have no value. They do. But, the value lies in understanding what they’re actually indicating and not resting on a naive and superficial understanding of the wisdom of crowds.

Does this mean that forecasting is impossible or that the experts are uninformed? Not at all. Highly accurate forecasting is possible.

The problem with the “experts” is not that they’re dopes (they’re not), or they’re not trying hard (they are). The problem is that they use the wrong models. The smartest person in the world working as hard as possible will always be wrong if you use the wrong model.

That why the IMF, Fed, and the wisdom of crowds bat below .500. They’re using the wrong models.

But here at Project Prophesy, I can confidently say I’ve got the right models, which I developed for the CIA working in collaboration with top applied mathematicians and physicists at places like the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Applied Physics Laboratory.

It’s these models that let me accurately forecast events like Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, while all the mainstream analysts laughed in my face. It’s not that I’m any smarter than many of these people. It’s just that I use superior models that work in the real world, not in never-never land..

These models do not assume equilibrium systems and normally distributed risk like mainstream models. My models are based on complexity theory, Bayesian statistics, behavioral psychology and history. They produce much more accurate results than all of the alternatives.

This is the methodology behind my forecasts, which allows my readers access to actionable market recommendations they won’t find elsewhere.

- Source, James Rickards

Thursday, February 7, 2019

Jim Rickards: Jay Powell's Gift to Markets

Fed Chair Jay Powell did not deliver any early Christmas presents to the markets last month, but he did pop the cork on a bottle of Champagne as a belated New Year’s gift on Friday, Jan. 4.

With just a few words, Powell sent the most powerful signal from the Fed since March 2015. Investors who understand and properly interpret that signal stand to avoid losses and reap huge gains in the weeks ahead.

First, let’s focus on Powell’s comments. Then we’ll explain what they actually meant.

The Fed has taken a March rate hike off the table until further notice. At a forum in Atlanta two Fridays ago, Powell joined former Fed chairs Yellen and Bernanke to discuss monetary policy.

In the course of his remarks, Powell used the word “patient” to describe the Fed’s approach to the next interest rate hike. When Powell did this, he was reading from a script of prepared remarks in what was otherwise billed as a “roundtable discussion.” This is a sign that Powell was being extremely careful to get his words exactly right.


Fed Chairman Jay Powell (left) joined former Fed chairs Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke at a roundtable in Atlanta recently. Powell revived the word “patient,” which was last used by the Fed in December 2014. It’s a powerful signal of no rate hikes until further notice.

When Powell said the Fed would be “patient” in reference to the next rate hike, this was not just happy talk. The word “patient” is Fed code for “No rate hikes until we give you a clear signal.” This interpretation is backed up by the Fed’s past use of verbal cues to signal ease or tightening in lieu of actual rate hikes or cuts.

The word “patient” has a long history in the Fed’s vocabulary. Prior to March 2015, the Fed consistently used the word “patient” in their FOMC statements. This was a signal that there would not be a rate hike at the next FOMC meeting. Investors could do carry trades safely.

As long as the word “patient” was in the Fed’s statements, investors knew that there would be no rate hike without warning. It was like an “all clear” signal for leveraged carry trades and risk-on investments. Only when the word “patient” was removed was the Fed signaling that rate hikes were back on the table. In that event, investors were being given fair warning to unwind carry trades and move to risk-off positions.

In March 2015, Yellen removed the word “patient” from the statement. That was a signal that a rate hike could happen at any time and the market was on notice. If you had a carry trade on and were relying on no rate hike, then shame on you.

In fact, the first rate hike (the “liftoff”) did not happen until December 2015, but the market was on notice through the June and September 2015 FOMC meetings that it could happen. (The liftoff was originally planned for September 2015, but was postponed because of the U.S. market crash in August 2015. This crash was due to the shock 3% China currency devaluation on Aug. 10; U.S. stocks fell 11% in four weeks.)

Now, for the first time since 2015, the word “patient” is back in the Fed’s statements. This means no future Fed rate hikes without fair warning. This could change again based on new data and new statements, but a change is unlikely before March at the earliest. For now, the Fed is rescuing markets with a risk-on signal. That’s why the market rallied that Friday and has reversed December’s downward trend.

But we’re not out of the woods. Just because the Fed signaled they will not raise rates in March does not mean that all is well with markets. The U.S. stock market had already anticipated the Fed would not raise rates in March. The statement by Powell confirms that, but this verbal ease is already priced in. As usual, the markets will want some ice cream to go with the big piece of cake they just got from Powell.

On the one hand, if we’re at or near the start of a bear market it will take more than a Fed pause to offset that. On the other hand, there’s no reason for markets to crash based on the U.S. economy alone since the Fed may make more candy available by continuing to use the word “patient” in March. So we’re in wait-and-see mode.

Meanwhile, there’s an even bigger threat on the horizon — China. Unobserved by many analysts, the Chinese are reducing their money supply even faster than the Fed.

The Fed’s signal on rates says nothing about Fed reductions in the money supply under the quantitative tightening (QT) program. The U.S. money supply reductions are going ahead at $600 billion per year.

China is burning money even faster to prop up the yuan in the midst of a trade war with Trump. What does it mean when the world’s two largest economies, comprising 40% of global GDP, both hit the brakes on money supply?

Nothing good. Milton Friedman demonstrated that monetary policy operates with a lag of 12–18 months. These U.S. and Chinese monetary tightening policies started just over a year ago. The initial impact of what has already been done by the central banks is just being felt now.

This means that the U.S.-China tightening will continue to be felt over the next year regardless of what the Fed does in March. Stopping rate hikes now is like hitting the car brakes when you’re driving on a frozen lake. You’re going to slide a long time before the car comes to a halt. Let’s hope you don’t hit a soft spot before then or you’ll end up underwater.

Of course, the China and U.S. domestic growth and monetary policy narratives converge in the trade war discussions going on now. The continuing trade war is another head wind to growth. No doubt Powell had this scenario in mind when he opted to use the word “patient.”

The risk to investors is that markets are on a sugar high because of Powell’s recent comments. But the sugar will soon wear off and the Fed won’t provide more until March at the earliest. By then, the reality of slower growth in China and the U.S. and a lack of substantive progress in the trade wars will give the market a dose of reality like getting hit with a cold bucket of water in the face.

Evidence for this slowing comes from the latest Atlanta Fed update to their fourth-quarter GDP forecast, which now projects 2.6% growth after being as high as 3% earlier in the quarter.

What are the implications for investors of belated Fed ease combined with signs of weaker growth in China and the U.S.?

Right now, my models are saying that Powell’s verbal ease is too little too late. Damage to U.S. growth prospects has already been done by the Fed’s tightening since December 2016 and the Fed’s QT policy that started in October 2017.

The U.S., China and Europe are all slowing at the same time. Markets see this (despite Fed ease) and are preparing for a recession at best and a possible market crash at worst.

One potential catalyst is the start of the Chinese New Year celebration of the Year of the Pig. Kicking off with the Little New Year on Jan. 28, this celebration actually stretches over two weeks and is accompanied by reduced productivity and liquidity in Chinese markets. That’s a recipe for volatility.

We also have a Fed FOMC meeting on Jan. 30. No rate hike is expected, obviously, but there will be a written statement issued. Markets will be looking for the word “patient” in print, and if they don’t find it, there could be a violent reversal in the sugar high that started two Fridays ago.

Investors should prepare now before markets reprice.

- Source, Jim Rickards via the Daily Reckoning

Monday, February 4, 2019

James Rickards: Here’s Where the Next Crisis Starts


The case for a pending financial collapse is well grounded. Financial crises occur on a regular basis including 1987, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2007-08. That averages out to about once every five years for the past thirty years. There has not been a financial crisis for ten years so the world is overdue. It’s also the case that each crisis is bigger than the one before and requires more intervention by the central banks.

The reason has to do with the system scale. In complex dynamic systems such as capital markets, risk is an exponential function of system scale. Increasing market scale correlates with exponentially larger market collapses.

This means a market panic far larger than the Panic of 2008.

Today, systemic risk is more dangerous than ever because the entire system is larger than before. Due to central bank intervention, total global debt has increased by about $150 trillion over the past 15 years. Too-big-to-fail banks are bigger than ever, have a larger percentage of the total assets of the banking system and have much larger derivatives books.

Each credit and liquidity crisis starts out differently and ends up the same. Each crisis begins with distress in a particular overborrowed sector and then spreads from sector to sector until the whole world is screaming, “I want my money back!”

First, one asset class has a surprise drop. The leveraged investors sell the sinking asset, but soon the asset is unwanted by anyone. Margin calls roll in. Investors then sell good assets to raise cash to meet the margin calls. This spreads the panic to banks and dealers who were not originally involved with the weak asset.

Soon the contagion spreads to all banks and assets, as everyone wants their money back all at once. Banks begin to fail, panic spreads and finally central banks step in to separate winners and losers and re-liquefy the system for the benefit of the winners.

Typically, small investors (and some bankrupt banks) get hurt the worst while the big banks get bailed out and live to fight another day.

That much panics have in common. What varies in financial panics is not how they end but how they begin. The 1987 crash started with computerized trading. The 1994 panic began in Mexico. The 1997–98 panic started in Asian emerging markets but soon spread to Russia and the big banks. The 2000 crash began with dot-coms. The 2008 panic was triggered by defaults in subprime mortgages.

The problem is that regulators are like generals fighting the last war. In 2008, the global financial crisis started in the U.S. mortgage market and spread quickly to the overleveraged banking sector.

Since then, mortgage lending standards have been tightened considerably and bank capital requirements have been raised steeply. Banks and mortgage lenders may be safer today, but the system is not. Risk has simply shifted.

What will trigger the next panic?

Prominent economist Carmen Reinhart says the place to watch is U.S. high-yield debt, aka “junk bonds.”

I’ve also raised the same argument. We’re facing a devastating wave of junk bond defaults. The next financial collapse will quite possibly come from junk bonds.

Let’s unpack this…

Since the great financial crisis, extremely low interest rates allowed the total number of highly speculative corporate bonds, or “junk bonds,” to rise about 60% — a record high. Many businesses became extremely leveraged as a result. Estimates put the total amount of junk bonds outstanding at about $3.7 trillion.

The danger is that when the next downturn comes, many corporations will be unable to service their debt. Defaults will spread throughout the system like a deadly contagion, and the damage will be enormous...


Sunday, January 27, 2019

Jim Rickards: New Cold War With China Possible


President Trump and his team of trade and finance advisers had dinner with President Xi Jinping of China and his team.

The purpose was to discuss the ongoing trade war between China and the U.S. Trump’s team had presented the Chinese team with 142 specific trade demands.

The two sides went over the demands one by one during the course of their two-hour dinner. When they were done, both sides announced a 90-day “truce” in the trade wars. China agreed to negotiate in good faith on the demands and the U.S. agreed to delay the imposition of tariffs scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, 2019, until March 1, 2019, to give the negotiations time to proceed.

This was not a final deal, but it did allow markets to breathe a sigh of relief. The initial response of the stock market was a rally.

But just hours after the Trump-Xi announcements, Canada arrested Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, in Vancouver, British Columbia. The arrest was at the request of the United States, which had issued an arrest warrant for Meng last August on numerous charges including money laundering, espionage and selling telecommunications equipment to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions.

Meng was arrested during a stopover in Vancouver on a flight from China to Mexico. She was avoiding U.S. territory but was apparently unaware of the U.S. arrest warrant and the degree of cooperation between Canada and the U.S. on criminal matters and extradition.Huawei is the largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer in the world and one of the largest tech companies in China. Meng is the daughter of Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei.

The arrest of Meng threw global markets into turmoil. The Dow Jones industrial average index fell over 1,400 points, a 5.5% swoon, from the close on Monday, Dec. 3 to the close on Friday, Dec. 7. As of the Friday close, the Dow was down for the month, quarter and year. By the way, as of today, Dec. 13, it’s still down on the year.

By Sunday, Dec. 9, Canada was asking that Meng remain in jail pending the outcome of a hearing on whether she should be extradited to the U.S. to face a criminal trial. Meng’s lawyers were arguing that she should be granted bail and was not a flight risk because she owned property in Vancouver. She also argued that her health would be adversely affected by further incarceration. The Canadian court took these claims under advisement and planned to rule soon on the bail and extradition.

The Huawei arrest was more than a shock to markets. It was also a shock to the U.S.-China trade war negotiations. Both sides pledged to keep the negotiations on track, but China was publicly outraged by the arrest.

China told the Canadian ambassador that there would be “severe consequences” if Canada did not immediately release Meng. China’s Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng told the U.S. ambassador to China that “the actions of the U.S. seriously violated the lawful and legitimate rights of the Chinese citizen, and by their nature were extremely nasty.” Le also said, “China will respond further depending on U.S. actions.”

The Meng arrest is significant in its own right, but is even more significant when taken in the full context of U.S.–China relations and the possibility of a new Cold War.

Huawei is not only China’s largest telecommunications firm; it is a leader in the rollout of 5G technology for mobile phones. Huawei is alleged to have deep ties to the Communist Chinese government and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei started his career as a military technologist at the People’s Liberation Army research institute. U.S. intelligence estimates that Huawei is de facto controlled by PLA and has engineered trapdoors and other devices in Huawei equipment that allow Huawei to spy on customer message traffic and to capture private data.

The U.S. has already refused to allow Huawei to make acquisitions of U.S. companies and has banned Huawei from sales of equipment to the U.S. government. The U.S. has also urged its intelligence partners in the “Five Eyes” (U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand) to do likewise. Huawei’s business is suffering worldwide just as the 5G tech implementation begins.

The next steps in the case are still pending. The British Columbia court needs to decide on bail and possible extradition. If Canada extradites Meng to the U.S., she will almost certainly face a trial on criminal charges unless a plea deal can be worked out. In a worst case, Meng will spend years in a U.S. prison. At best, the case will inflict major damage on U.S.-China relations and the prospects for peace in the trade wars.

In the meantime, the 90-day “truce” that Trump and Xi negotiated in Buenos Aires is still officially in force.

The Chinese could offer token concessions and use the 90-day window to cook up new happy talk. Their hope will be that after 90 days of negotiations and some minor concessions, the U.S. will be reluctant to break the peace or impose the additional tariffs.

The 90-day period will also give the Chinese lobbyists time to gin up opposition to tariffs from U.S. agricultural importers. This is an important political constituency for Trump as we move closer to the 2020 presidential election season. Trump needs support from agricultural states like Missouri, Iowa and Wisconsin to win his second term as president. It seems the Chinese understand U.S. politics better than most Americans.

The Chinese are also notorious for saying one thing and doing another. They will gladly sign an agreement that calls for reductions in the theft of intellectual property and then turn around and keep up the thefts (perhaps with a more covert method).

The Chinese have consistently broken their word when it comes to trade, beginning with their admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001. They will do it again once they tie the U.S.’ hands on tariffs.

The good news for the U.S. is that the Chinese tricks are fairly well-known by now. Trump’s most trusted and powerful adviser on trade is ambassador Robert Lighthizer, who was at the dinner. Lighthizer sees the Chinese for what they are and knows the litany of broken promises and lies better than the Chinese leadership.

If substantive improvements with adequate verification cannot be agreed upon with the Chinese by April 1, 2019, Lighthizer is ready to immediately raise tariffs on China. President Trump agrees with Lighthizer and will not hesitate to raise the tariffs. At that point, the trade wars will be back with a vengeance.

- Source, The Daily Reckoning via James Rickards

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

James Rickards: 2019 Headwinds Are Getting Stronger

In 2017, every prominent economic forecasting entity was shouting from the rooftops about “synchronized global growth.” This was a reference to the fact that not only were certain economies growing, but they were all growing at the same time.

Chinese GDP growth had come down but was still substantial at 6.85%. U.S. GDP growth was posting solid gains of 3.0% in the second quarter of 2017 and 2.8% in the third quarter. Japan and Europe were not growing as quickly as the U.S. and China, but growth was still accelerating from a low level.

Synchronization was a big part of the story. Growth was not isolated and episodic. Growth was fueling more growth in what seemed to be a sustainable way. The world economy was firing on all cylinders.

Then in 2018 the global growth story came screeching to a halt. Japanese growth went negative in the third quarter of 2018. Germany also went negative. Chinese growth continued its drop (6.5% in the third quarter) instead of stabilizing.

The U.K slowed partly because of confusion around Brexit. French growth slid amid riots triggered by a proposed carbon emissions tax. Australian home prices declined precipitously because export orders from China dried up and Chinese flight capital slowed to a trickle due to Chinese capital controls.

The U.S. economy held up fairly well in 2018, with 4.2% growth in the second quarter and 3.5% growth in the third quarter. But much of that growth was inventory accumulation from foreign suppliers in advance of proposed tariffs.

That inventory growth will likely dry up once the tariffs are either imposed or abandoned early this year. Fourth-quarter growth in the U.S. is currently projected at 3.0%, continuing the downtrend from the second quarter.

What happened?

Much of the global slowdown has to do with the high degree of interconnectedness of the global economy and the extent of global supply chains. The flip side of synchronized growth is a synchronized slowdown. Just as growth in one economy can lead to increased exports for trading partners, a slowdown leads to reduced exports.

Still, why has growth slowed down at all?

The answer has to do with debt, Fed policy, political developments, as well as trade wars. Specifically, the U.S. and China, the world’s two largest economies, are discovering the limits of debt-fueled growth.

The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is now 106%, the highest since the end of the Second World War. The Chinese debt-to-GDP ratio is a more reasonable 48%, but that figure is misleading because it does not include the debts and guarantees of provinces, state-owned enterprises, banks, wealth management products and numerous other entities that the government in Beijing is directly or indirectly obligated to support.

When that additional debt is taken into account, the real debt-to-GDP ratio is over 250%, about the same as Japan’s.

Debt-to-GDP ratios below 60% are considered sustainable; ratios between 60% and 90% are considered unsustainable and need to be reversed; and ratios in excess of 90% are in the red zone and will produce negative growth along with default through nonpayment, inflation or other forms of debt repudiation. The world’s three largest economies — the U.S., China and Japan — are all now deep in the red zone.

European growth is also slowing down. While the causes may vary, growth in all of the major economies in the EU and the U.K. is either slowing or has already turned negative.

What is striking is the speed with which synchronized global growth has turned to synchronized slowing. Indications are that this slowing is far from over. While growth can create a positive feedback loop, slowing can do the same.

The interconnectedness of global growth was summarized in this quote from Stephen “Sarge” Guilfoyle, director of floor operations for the New York Stock Exchange in a recent column for TheStreet’s Real Money:

There is an old adage, “When America sneezes, the world catches a cold.” What if the world’s two largest economies (U.S. and China) sneeze at the same time? Wait. I can top that. What if the U.S., China, the EU, Japan and the U.K. all sneeze at the same time? What if all mentioned are either involved in trade disputes, and/or the perverse use of both fiscal and/or monetary policies while suffering from heightened political risk? Oh, and at least temporarily, the U.S. faces a partial government shutdown as well. That’s a strong sort of fiscal/political mix.

Well, we already have the partial shutdown, now over two weeks old. On the political front, it’s sufficient to say that the dysfunction is getting worse, not better, and it will have an adverse effect on investor portfolios.

Democrats took charge of the House of Representatives last week on, Jan. 3, and they will use their committee control to launch literally dozens of investigations into “Russia collusion,” Trump’s business dealings, Trump’s inaugural financing, Trump’s tax returns, campaign finance, regulatory reforms, appointments and much more.

But Republicans continue to hold the U.S. Senate. They will use their committee control to hold hearings on FBI corruption, Intelligence Community abuse of spying powers, Hillary Clinton’s private server that held classified information and Democratic coverups on Benghazi, tea party IRS attacks, the Clinton Foundation “pay for play” deals with former Secretary of State Clinton, false accusations related to the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh and more.

In short, it’s war.

Some of these hearings are political stunts just for show. They will make great headlines over a one-day (or one-hour) news cycle but won’t lead to any substantive charges or changes. Yet other hearings could have grave consequences — especially those that may result in criminal charges, including the Clinton Foundation case.

Hanging over all of this is the specter of impeachment. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives. If the president is impeached, the matter is referred to the Senate for a trial. If convicted in a Senate trial, the president is removed from office and the Vice President (Mike Pence) becomes president.

Conviction in the Senate requires a super-majority of 67 votes to remove the president. Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats. Assuming all 47 Democrats vote to remove the president, 20 Republicans would have to switch sides and vote to remove President Trump from office. This is extremely unlikely to occur.

The worst case for impeachment is that the House impeaches Trump but the Senate does not vote to convict him so he remains in office. The best case is that the House makes noise about impeachment, holds hearings but in the end does not vote to impeach.

Either scenario will be positive for Trump’s reelection chances in 2020. Americans may dislike a lot about Trump’s day-to-day demeanor, but Americans are also fair-minded people on the whole.

They will see impeachment as another over-the-top move by Democrats (like the made-up “Russia collusion” story) and actually begin to sympathize with the president. Trump is also a master at turning attacks around on his opponents.

Whether impeachment happens or not and whether Trump benefits or not is unimportant for investors. What is important is the impact of political dysfunction and uncertainty on portfolios.

There the news is not good.

Regardless of the outcome of impeachment, investors should be prepared for a bumpy ride as headlines swing from good to bad and back again for Trump.

Meanwhile, the Fed is raising interest rates and reducing its balance sheet. The Fed’s balance sheet has been reduced by $375 billion in the past 14 months. That balance sheet is scheduled to fall by another $600 billion this year and $600 billion the following year until the balance sheet reaches a level of $2.9 trillion by the end of 2020.

This kind of extreme balance sheet reduction is entirely experimental. It has never been attempted before in the 106-year history of the Federal Reserve.

Analysts estimate that reducing the balance sheet by $600 billion per year (the current tempo) is equivalent to increasing the fed funds target rate by 1% per year. This implied rate hike comes on top of the 0.25% rate hikes the Fed has been announcing every quarter. QT and actual rate hikes taken together are increasing rates by 2% per year from a 2.5% base, an extreme form of monetary tightening.

The Fed is tightening into weakness and will have to pivot towards easing once it becomes obvious. But it may very well be too late.

The bottom line is that uncertainty reigns and it’s not going away anytime soon. Investors can profit from this with a combination of long-volatility strategies, safe-haven assets, gold and cash.

Saturday, January 19, 2019

Jim Rickards: Jerome Powell Caves to Market Demands

Fed Chair Jay Powell just sent the most powerful signal from the Fed since March 2015.

He has pretty much taken a March 2019 rate hike off the table until further notice. At a forum hosted by the American Economic Association in Atlanta last Friday, Powell used the word “patient” to describe the Fed’s approach to the next interest rate hike.

When Powell did this, he was reading from a script of prepared remarks in what was otherwise billed as a “roundtable discussion.”

This is a sign that Powell was being extremely careful to get his words exactly right. When Powell said the Fed would be “patient” in reference to the next rate hike, this was not just happy talk. The word “patient” is Fed code for “no rate hikes until we give you a clear signal.”

This interpretation is backed up by the Fed’s past use of verbal cues to signal ease or tightening in lieu of actual rate hikes or cuts. Prior to March 2015, the Fed consistently used the word “patient” in their FOMC statements.

This was a signal that there would not be a rate hike at the next FOMC meeting. Investors could do carry trades safely. Only when the word “patient” was removed was the Fed signaling that rate hikes were back on the table.

In that event, investors were being given fair warning to move to risk-off positions.

In March 2015, Yellen removed the word “patient” from the statement. In fact, the first rate hike (the “liftoff”) did not happen until December 2015, but the market was on notice through the June and September 2015 FOMC meetings that it could happen.

Now, for the first time since 2015, the word “patient” is back in the Fed’s statements, which means no future Fed rate hikes without fair warning.

For now, the Fed is rescuing markets with a risk-on signal. That's why the market rallied last Friday. But we're not out of the woods by any means.

The U.S. stock market had already anticipated the Fed would not raise rates in March. Friday’s statement by Powell confirms that, but this verbal ease is already priced in. As usual, the markets will want some ice cream to go with the big piece of cake they just got from Powell.

The next FOMC meeting is Jan. 30. If the Fed does not repeat the word “patient,” markets could be in for an extremely negative reaction.

Looking ahead to rest of 2019, what are my models and methods telling us today about the prospects for the economy and markets?

The answer to that question requires an overview of many markets and sovereign economies around the world. While forecasts for China, the U.S. and Europe may differ in many particulars, what they have in common is interconnectedness.

For example, a slowdown in China due to excessive debt and trade wars can reduce exports from Europe. In turn, reduced European exports can slow down European purchases of raw materials and other inputs and lead to a weaker euro.

The weaker euro can translate into a stronger dollar, which causes disinflation in the U.S. That disinflation can increase the real value of debt burdens in the U.S. if nominal growth is lower than the increase in the nominal deficit.

In other words, what happens in China does not stay in China. The world is densely connected. Any sound analysis must consider the ripples spreading out from any one factor.

We need to look at the synchronized global slowdown, the Fed’s misguided policies, currency wars, trade wars and political dysfunction in the U.S. to arrive at conclusions and forecasts for the U.S. and beyond.

All this takes place against a backdrop of mounting global debt.

According to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), it required a record $8 trillion of freshly created debt to create just $1.3 trillion of global GDP. The trend is clear. The massive debts intended to achieve growth are piling on every day. Meanwhile, many of the debts taken on since 2009 are still on the books.

This is a crisis waiting to happen. The combination of slow or negative growth and unprecedented debt is a recipe for a new debt crisis, which could easily slide into another global financial crisis.

The Fed will have to pivot back to loosening, including a possible reintroduction of quantitative easing. But by then, it may be too late.

Below, I show you why the economic head winds are getting stronger as we begin 2019. What can you do to prepare? Read on.

- Source, James Rickards

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

James Rickards: Stay in Gold and Cash, Ride Out the Coming Storm


Investors should play it safe and stay away from publicly-traded stocks that have more room to fall further, warns Jim Rickards, chief global strategist at West Shore Funds.

- Source, CNBC

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Axis of Gold: Sanctions Weaponize the Dollar


Jim Rickards, author of The Road to Ruin, joins Remy Blaire at the NASDAQ MarketSite following the December FOMC rate announcement to discuss the trajectory of the Federal Reserve. 

Rickards weighs in on the U.S.-China trade war and the fundamental outlook for the global investment landscape.

- Source, Sprott Media

Wednesday, January 9, 2019

James Rickards: The Depression Is Over 10 Years Old and Not Over Yet


James G. Rickards, author and strategist, joins Remy Blaire of Sprott Media, to discuss gold and why "the little engine that could" will do more than chug higher when the Federal Reserve pauses. 

Rickards provides an explanation for why growth can occur during a depression and the warning signs that he considers point to an eventual recession in the U.S. economy.

- Source, Sprott Media